Future of porn (and this site) is really uncertain right now…

[PozBearWI]

I won't necessarily be surprised.  But it will mark another sad point in our history.  Socially we seem to be at a new tipping point. 

[harrysmith25]

3 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

I won't necessarily be surprised.  But it will mark another sad point in our history.  Socially we seem to be at a new tipping point. 

THE WORLD IS FALLING DOWN EVEN THOUGH WE WON!!!

[hntnhole]

3 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Socially we seem to be at a new tipping point. 

If this is true, then we must do what we've always done. 

Fight like hell for our human rights, and the human rights of every other sub-group of the human experience.  That's how we've achieved the level of acceptance we enjoy today, and that's how we'll continue to enjoy the freedoms we've fought for.  Never just give up without a fight. 

Keep fighting.  Never give up.  Agitate.  Demonstrate.  Act-Up.  We've done it before, and there is only a smallish group of pinheads trying to turn the clock of progress back.  We can do it again.  

[TrashNoLoss]

On 1/4/2023 at 4:42 PM, Hotrawbutt4u said:

Right now only things like scat and blood are clearly obscene

That right up there ^ is why laws get put in place to allow or restrict something that is not based on fact, it is based on opinion.

Right now only things like opinions on other peoples sexual connections and sexual fetishes are “clearly” obscene.

Clearly?

For Fuck Sake Gay Men will be the reason any hammer comes down and the reason for civil unrest. 

Why? Well those conservative gay men who must always have clean sheets put on bed after, you know doing it, will call out everyone who doesn’t and for everything else. The see you call others acts as obscene, why cant they?

And as for Civil Unrest, believe  whatever you want, right now Preference is the tidy way of saying no Black Men, no White Men, No old, No Young, No Heavy Men, No skinny men, No men with hair, no men without hair.

And since Preference works so well here then…Preference for our schools, preference for our public transportation seating arrangement. and preference for a home loan.

Preference: A way of conveying one THING  more than another THING has more value to you. It should NEVER be applied to human beings. It could be that one’s own privilege has shielded them from this truth.

Carry on.

Have a good weekend.

[Sfmike64]

On 1/5/2023 at 5:55 PM, BootmanLA said:

There is a difference between "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" and "being fair to". The former is something you do when you're not sure, exactly, how they feel or believe or would act in a given situation. The latter is for where the person's position is well established and well known, but may be mischaracterized by some. That's the case for Thomas.

It's easy to point a finger at Thomas and yell "Hypocrite!" because of his opposition to the legal foundation for same-sex marriage, while he himself is in an interracial marriage, given that both were outlawed at one time. But the fact remains that the legal reasons for striking down one are unrelated to the legal reasons for striking down the other. Racial discrimination is expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. Sexual orientation discrimination, including in marriage, is not. I might wish, as you might, and many of us might, that it were protected expressly, but that isn't the case.

When has Clarence Thomas ever been fair to us? Fuck him. fuck his traitor wife. Fuck them straight to hell.

Edited January 7, 2023 by Sfmike64

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, Sfmike64 said:

When has Clarence Thomas ever been fair to us? Fuck him. fuck his traitor wife. Fuck them straight to hell.

I never said, one way or the other, whether Thomas has been "fair" to us or not. I believe that his legal views are warped - that they are out of the mainstream legal profession - but I don't really perceive animus on his part, or an effort to be unfair. As he noted in his dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case (which struck down state sodomy laws), he found such laws "uncommonly silly" and he would not hesitate to vote to repeal them if he were a legislator. He simply didn't believe that they were unconstitutional (because, again, he doesn't believe in substantive due process, which underpins that rationale).

His legal thoughts may well be skewed (as I note, they're far outside the mainstream). But he's consistent in his approach, and I honestly don't perceive any specific animus towards gay people in his opinions. I think he's just wrong on the law.

[Sfmike64]

If you don’t perceive any animus on his part, then you know little about him, his history, or what he stands for. 

[BootmanLA]

On 1/7/2023 at 10:14 PM, Sfmike64 said:

If you don’t perceive any animus on his part, then you know little about him, his history, or what he stands for. 

You're entitled to your opinion.

[harrysmith25]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:37 AM, BootmanLA said:

You're entitled to your opinion.

And you're entitled to believe that that constitutes a "witty" comeback.

We just wish you'd do it in private, like most other people who like to pretend they're Lisa Simpson and it's the year 1995.

[Close2MyBro]

On 1/4/2023 at 10:29 AM, BootmanLA said:

This right here renders most of your opinion moot and pointless, not because non-Americans can't have opinions about our government, but because you're unlikely actually reading any significant amount of real, factual news about our elections. 

 

Really? I'd bet my money an international political scholar has much more knowledge about what is going on in our government than the average US citizen. So many people here believe whatever they're told to believe and do no research on their own, or spend any time to analyze the facts to draw their own conclusion. The democratic party lives for the "uninformed voter" and they do everything in their power to ensure that their "followers" stay as uninformed as possible. 

[BootmanLA]

59 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

an international political scholar has much more knowledge about what is going on in our government than the average US citizen. 

True, but there's nothing in this person's profile to indicate he's any such thing as an "international political scholar." And given that he referred to "trannies" in another posting here, I have serious doubts that he's anything of the sort. If he'd shown any sort of awareness of how our political system works - he mischaracterized how the impeachment process works, he mistakenly stated that we'd removed Supreme Court justices by that means before (we haven't), and he seems to not understand that with party-line votes in Congress and no party controlling 2/3 of the Senate since 1966, no impeachment for anything is likely to succeed because of tribal politics. Those are not, may I charitably say, the signs of an "international political scholar". They are the signs of a misinformed twitwit.

1 hour ago, Close2MyBro said:

So many people here believe whatever they're told to believe and do no research on their own, or spend any time to analyze the facts to draw their own conclusion.

That is true "on average" but the distribution of such people is not equal between the parties.

1 hour ago, Close2MyBro said:

The democratic party lives for the "uninformed voter" and they do everything in their power to ensure that their "followers" stay as uninformed as possible. 

Kudos for giving the party its proper name (although uncapitalized). But you're simply mistaken about which party lives for the uninformed voter - even the Republicans freely admit this when there are no microphones present (and sometimes even when they are). Moreover, college-educated voters by a significant margin vote Democratic, and although educational achievement is not an exact proxy for being informed, it's certainly related.

It's also widely documented that GOP voters, not Democratic ones, get the majority of their "information" from dubious or slanted news sources. There is no equivalent to NewsMax or OAN on the left, for instance, and while it's arguable that MSNBC is as leftist as FoxNews is right-wing, only one of the two is noted for promoting paranoid conspiracies about things like election security and Covid-19, and it's not the liberal one.

Find me the liberal equivalent to the hordes of GOP voters who think the 2020 election was stolen, or that Covid-19 is a hoax, or that there's a secret pedophile ring among "globalist" liberals. 

[harrysmith25]

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Find me the liberal equivalent to the hordes of GOP voters who think the 2020 election was stolen

Why do you keep saying "hordes" when Trump supporters are supposed to be a minority? lol. Every single damn day you're saying how afraid of the "massive hordes" of rednecks despite saying Biden won by 7 million votes. You wake up just to do this thing alone, every single day. No. other. Hobbies. Or. Interests. In. Life. To. Speak. Of.

Those people who "deny" the 2020 election aren't insane like you're suggesting, they are entitled to their opinion... they're just frequently not allowed to say their opinion (including here).... just like you're not allowed to say a lot of things in the new, uh..."non-fascist" America. LOL

Boot so-called "man", you are just spouting off like any sophomoric college student, typing a list of people which are supposed to be bad, "FOX NEWS, ELECTION DENIERS" etc in the hope that it will impress somebody. Perhaps also you're hoping someone in real life will mistake you for a college student, sorry bud, that wrinkly dinosaur skin isn't going away.

More importantly, you only talk about why those people you listed are supposedly "bad", you can't tell us why the  shrivelled hind-leg-walking tortoise called Biden is supposed to be good. Tell us a real, convincing reason why he's supposed to be "good".
(gay marriage rights will not be a lot of use to your average American gay, when Biden and pals have finished flooding the entire country with people who've just come from backward hellholes where they kill gays and stone their wife to death for showing too much ankle)

If I come back later and find you actually want to continue the conversation instead of having me banned for saying the truth, then maybe we'll get onto that "equivalency" you were asking for.

[Guest]

On 12/16/2022 at 3:42 PM, hntnhole said:

Not much difference between the two that I can see; two sides of the same damn coin. 

cheers to that....!

[PozBearWI]

True that the election deniers are entitled to their opinion.  We all are.  However, truth is truth.  I recall the Trump voters of 2016 (when Trump actually won the Electoral College votes; albeit not the popular vote) telling those who didn't vote with them "Deal with it".  Right neighborly of them don't you think?

These same people carry on the lie Trump promulgated in 2020 and which he and his ilk still push.  But he did not win that election, either by Electoral College nor by popular vote.  To the contrary, he as actually committed a series of illegal acts to overthrow the will of the majority.  

Now, indeed they can still think of 45 as their king.  But he lost.  And he committed (as yet unprosecuted) treason.  

[harrysmith25]

7 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

True that the election deniers are entitled to their opinion.  We all are.  However, truth is truth.  I recall the Trump voters of 2016 (when Trump actually won the Electoral College votes; albeit not the popular vote) telling those who didn't vote with them "Deal with it".  Right neighborly of them don't you think?

These same people carry on the lie Trump promulgated in 2020 and which he and his ilk still push.  But he did not win that election, either by Electoral College nor by popular vote.  To the contrary, he as actually committed a series of illegal acts to overthrow the will of the majority.  

Now, indeed they can still think of 45 as their king.  But he lost.  And he committed (as yet unprosecuted) treason.  

Please wait while I delete every opinion or observation I ever had, simply  because one old geezer can say "AH BUT YOU SEE, HE DID LOSE, YOU SEE. " while wagging a finger.

And you threw in "something something treason". Well done the word treason was a bit of variety from the usual shriek of "insurrection".

I'm also deleting all my critical thinking skills for your comfort. "Why would Americans vote for a senile fuck who says the Islamic phrase Inshallah during a live political debate. And his only ever "achievement" was to get repeatedly returned as a senator for the exciting state of Dela-where?"

That's the last time I'll ever hear my brain ask those questions either internally or otherwise.

*100% deleted*

Ah good, no more of those pesky "thoughts".

holy crap, I think with this "jim" we really found someone who actually believes it.. believes it was real. I mean obviously Bootman doesn't. Dude "jim"  you're like a 19 year old who still believes in Santa Claus. you're rare man.

Botman has spent the last 2 years crowing about it and people dont spend that long crowing about straightforward, fair victories. Especially if they're crippled and celibate people posting on a sex site... he has to taunt other people to compensate for the fact that life tortures him.

Edited January 18, 2023 by harrysmith25